Keep OpenNASA feature under new Participatory Exploration Office 

Congress directed NASA to create a Participatory Exploration Office. How cool if OpenNASA ideashare moved into this new office and stayed alive indefinitely -- rather than shut down in March.

Volunteers from around the Centers could help moderate (as they do now) and figure out how to implement solutions from these wonderful suggestions.

Expose "toxic" leadership 

Many NASA employees and contractors fear speaking out. After nearly 2 decades of management by intimidation and retribution in many offices (NOT ALL), we've nurtured bullies and taught employees to ignore warning signs of toxic leadership. (Duck and cover survival tactics.)

From the top down, the garden looks beautiful. But from the bottom-up, the smell of manure in the soil can be suffocating.

This may sound like strong language but speaking as someone at the grass-level, I see a HUGE issue. If we don't know how to recognize harmful patterns in the way we do business on an every-day basis, we can't address the problem.

My suggestion is to educate our employees (and managers) about destructive patterns and what steps to take to positively change the outcome. We could create a "referee service" to help employees identify ways to address toxic leaders and help leadership learn new patterns of management. (Most employees who've been bullied for years, will be afraid to speak out. Anonymous interactions would be key to success.)


I offer these references I found on the web. I've merely copied and pasted the info below:

Toxic Boss Syndrome:
http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/ToxicBoss082697.htm

We all know them. The supervisor who constantly berates their people. The team leader who creates division within the group instead of harmony. The manager who condescends to talk to the individuals in their group, but never listens to their input. These are toxic bosses.

They sap the energy of the individuals in their groups. They are belittling, petty and loud. They consider themselves better than everyone else and they don't care who knows it. All they care about is "getting the job done". Or maybe it's "straightening this place out". In their drive to achieve their goal they ignore or overlook the other people in the organization. And in the end it hurts them too.

Wiki definitions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_leader

In "Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters," Barbara Kellerman (2004) suggests that toxicity in leadership (or simply, "bad leadership") may be analyzed into seven different types:
--Incompetent - the leader and at least some followers lack the will or skill (or both) to sustain effective action. With regard to at least one important leadership challenge, they do not create positive change.
--Rigid - the leader and at least some followers are stiff and unyielding. Although they may be competent, they are unable or unwilling to adapt to new ideas, new information, or changing times.
--Intemperate - the leader lacks self-control and is aided and abetted by followers who are unwilling or unable to effectively intervene.
--Callous - the leader and at least some followers are uncaring or unkind. Ignored and discounted are the needs, wants, and wishes of most members of the group or organization, especially subordinates.
--Corrupt - the leader and at least some followers lie, cheat, or steal. To a degree that exceeds the norm, they put self-interest ahead of the public interest.
Insular - the leader and at least some followers minimize or disregard the health and welfare of those outside the group or organization for which they are directly responsible.
--Evil - the leader and at least some followers commit atrocities. They use pain as an instrument of power. The harm can be physical, psychological or both.
Kellerman's study proposes to shed light on aspects of bad leadership so that we can understand, identify and hopefully prevent instances of bad leadership.

"The Allure of Toxic Leaders : Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians--and How We Can Survive Them ", Professor Jean Lipman-Blumens' core focus is on investigating WHY people will continue to follow and remain loyal to toxic leaders. She explores why followers often vigorously resist change and challenges to leaders who have clearly violated the leader/follower relationship and abused their power as leaders to the direct detriment of the people they are leading. Lipman-Blumen suggests there is something of a deeply psychological nature going on. She argues the need to feel safety, specialness and community all help explain this phenomenon.

Incentive awards 4 creative thinking (new participatory office) 

NASA received money to set up a new Participatory Exploration Office at NASA. Why not use the money as incentive bonus/grant seed money to encourage NASA employees to think creatively on how to multipurpose NASA technology/processes for public participation?

Organizational culture is one of our internal barriers to thinking differently about the way we operate (transparency/innovation/participatory ventures) at NASA. By offering financial incentives to innovative "participatory" applications, we can shift the culture through rewards, rather than mandates.

Three weapons in our innovative arsenal:
-financial reward with other incentives,
- % of time on the job for innovative thinking/problem-solving, and
- time-off awards for working on spin-off projects.

It's a start, at least.
:)

NASA TV-Public Content 

We could do this any number of ways:

1) Open up an opportunity for public to offer creative content to be aired on NASA TV -- within G-rated guidelines, of course. We could suggest a series of categories or simply let the creative juices flow to see what bubbles up. (No exchange of funds.)

2) Put out a call for concepts: short films, series talk-shows, class-room content delivery, 30-second fun fact clips. We fund creation of interesting concepts for viewing on NASA TV/web.

3) Run a series of topic-based contests. Contestants create trailers for public vote. The winner works with NASA to create final product to be aired on NASA TV.

4)Space Artifacts road show: Think Antiques Road show, but for space-related stuff. We all have it, don't we? Robot toys to moon rocks (oops, you shouldn't have those....) Let experts come visit your town to your cool space stuff -- comic books, desk pens from Apollo days, etc.

5) You add more ideas here....

Junior Astronaut Corps 

Allow students to compete for 25 coveted slots in the Junior Astronaut Corps -- using much of the same criteria (but age-appropriate) as we use to select astronauts. Once we (NASA) down-select to 50, open the selection up to public vote. Let the students campaign using social media tools to get the word out about why space is "the place," and why humans should be living and working there.

Once the winning 25 are selected, we invite them to train along-side our astronauts during the summer, work as interns in NASA offices, and speak to schools about their experiences. We can give them a special Junior Astronaut website with a collection of social media tools to use aggregated at that one site.

What NASA gets: revved up youth, potential future workforce, and increased public awareness.
What the students get: ACCESS to the inside!

Allow NASA employees 10-20% each week for innovative projects 

If we truly believe in innovation, employees should be encouraged/rewarded to spend a set-aside time each week for unstructured creative, innovative thinking. This could include collaborating with industry or with employees other work-units to pursue ideas. Only when we free our employees to work creatively will we spark free-flowing innovations. The post-it note came from a 3M adhesive that didn't work. Employees given creative time came up with the idea to use the failed glue for a stickie note.

People's Choice Space Awards 

I'd love to open a People's Choice website where "the people" can nominate categories for recognition of "things" NASA or the space community does well, and people who do "things" well at NASA or the space community. Let "the people" vote the categories up or down, nominate projects and people to fill the categories, and vote the nominees up and down. Part of the selection process would include YouTube videos featuring the work/person being voted on (if the nominee chooses to remain in the running. People's Choice awardees get bragging rights + their video stays up on a People's Choice website for a year.

This could also be a People's Choice Gov Award too.